Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MPs' spouses prepare legal battle to save their jobs

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 November 2009
By Gerri Peev
HUSBANDS and wives who work for their MP spouses are preparing a High Court challenge to new rules which will force them to be sacked from their parliamentary jobs.
About 20 of those affected met a lawyer from the union Unite on Wednesday to discuss launching a legal battle to save them from being fired.

As part of an overhaul of the expenses system, MPs will be banned from hiring spouses or relatives as th
eir researchers.

Nearly 200 MPs employ their spouses. Sir Christopher Kelly, who chaired the review of MPs' expenses, said in no other industry were people automatically allowed to hire their relatives or partners from the public purse without advertising the posts.

But lawyers are now threatening to challenge the new rules under sex discrimination laws.

Dan Whittle, chairman of the Unite parliamentary branch, said: "The advice was given that there could be the potential for a judicial review of any decision by IPSA to put into practice Sir Chris Kelly's proposal on the basis of Section 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975."

MPs have even discussed holding a "wife swap" so their spouses could work for other MPs to get around the new rules.

Meanwhile, shadow prisons minister Alan Duncan was cleared of wrongly claiming tens of thousands of pounds in mortgage interest payments on his second home. The Commons standards and privileges committee said there had been no breach of Commons rules.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 November 2009 11:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 06/11/2009 02:24:41

More the likes a "legal battle", that will become so complex, it is better not to take place, in the first place, the taxpayer would be financially better off, to keep our loving wife's.



2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 06/11/2009 02:26:06

More the likes a "legal battle", that will become so complex, it is better not to take place, in the first place, the taxpayer would be financially better off, to keep our loving wives.


3

Incandescent,

06/11/2009 02:37:23
Are we expected to believe that a single one of them were or are a member of Unite?

Perhaps some journalist should do some digging on this because I for one believe the mere concept of belonging to a union would fill them with shame. Besides, they wouldn't have foreseen a need, given their employers.
4

Jock's Away,

Africa 06/11/2009 05:56:20
Nice to see nepotism is alive and well in Britsh politics. Here in Africa we thought we were the leaders in that field. Oop did we get if wrong!! we were told that by the long line of British Politcians travelling to the continent over decades.
Most civil services and the UN do not permit spouse or family to work together, Guess Brtish MP are less human and don't need those restrictions.
5

sam the god,

06/11/2009 08:18:22
good let them go to court and explaine the expences that they incurred if their partners are doing it you can bet they were to
6

Ben Thehoose,

06/11/2009 08:26:09
I wish they were as active protecting everyone else's jobs.
7

watcher,

Edinburgh 06/11/2009 08:49:28
What aboot Sturgeons MAW haggis bashers?
8

Arbroath1320,

06/11/2009 09:03:09
Guarantee all this legal stuff will be paid for by the tax payer.
Have politicians no shame?

9

Tynietiger,

06/11/2009 09:10:32
These are Labour and Tory MPs who are complaining.

No one joins the SNP or Lib Dems for career advancement.
10

Alan B,

06/11/2009 11:15:45
I never understand why mps need to employ anyone when many see being an mp as a part time job.

If they have enough time to do a second job why do they need to employ someone as they have too much work to do. Or is it because they are so incompetent that they are not capable of doing the job and need someone to hold their hands.
11

Jo Public,

06/11/2009 12:41:07
MPs just don't get it.

How many of them conducted fair interviews for these jobs they gave to their spouses?
These jobs are public jobs and, as such, should have been advertised to the public, and a proper recruitment policy followed.

And I am puzzled about the bit that says "But lawyers are now threatening to challenge the new rules under sex discrimination laws"

Sex discrimination laws? What on earth are they talking about? Is there something in the Sex Discrimination act that forces MPs to employ their wives or something?
12

Jo Public,

06/11/2009 12:42:28
Anyway, does that not mean Jacqui Smith's husband is now unemployed? More time to catch up on some DVDs.
13

Gdgy,

06/11/2009 13:18:29
They just don't get it - do they?

After the biggest expression of distrust, anger and hatred for the gorging fat-cats, they bleat about unfairness!!!
If you are so upset, resign!!!!
I'm sure that another candidate with faults that we don't know yet (but could guess)will slime along to take your place....
14

Incandescent,

06/11/2009 13:27:54
Have any journalists yet looked into how many of those concerned were actually members of Unite up until the union took up their case?
15

Arminius,

Bei Uelzen 06/11/2009 17:37:21
These individuals appear to have failed to have grasped the extent to which this sort of behaviour has alienated them from the public and mounting a legal challenge to preserve their unadvertised "cushy number" jobs will only make matters worse. They may find themselves losing their jobs sooner rather than later when their spouses are booted out of office at the next election. Try mounting a legal challenge to that......
16

Campaign Lawer,

Elgin 06/11/2009 21:46:22

A little bit of advice for all husbands and wives who work for their MP.

You will never win a case against the Government, unless you are very very rich or very very poor and are able to claim Legal Aid..

I very much doubt if any of you fall into either category.

You can thank our Democratic society which has been created by a Labour Dictatorship for this.
17

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 06/11/2009 23:08:41
The MP's working spouse is a difficult matter. Each MP and constituency is unique and in many cases, the spouse has a knowledge and experience and make a positive hardworking contribution to the MP. Perhaps the MPs' salaries need to be raised to recognise the work the spouse does. If an MP has a non-related secretary then they can be paid from the public purse.

As regards MPs salaries I heard a suggestion that it should be on a scale based on age, and length of service. I think this is sensible. Why should a newly elected MP aged 25 receive the same salary as a back bencher aged 60 who has served a constituency for 30 years. The MP is a public servant and the salary should be linked to someone with similiar resposibility and experience, such as a senior police officer or headteacher.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More UK

More UK >>

More Politicians' expenses

More Politicians' expenses >>

Features

Online Supplements
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.